填空题The world’s most extensive research effort on climate change is now regulated by the U.S. Global Change Research Program.____

填空题At the global level, countries around the world have expressed a firm commitment to strengthening international responses to the risks of climate change.____

单选题Passage 2Americans don't like to lose wars. Of course,a lot depends on how you define just what a war is. There are shooting wars-the kind that test patriotism and courage-and those are the kind at which the U.S. excels. But other struggles test those qualities too. What else was the Great Depression or the space race or the construction of the railroads? If American indulge in a bit of flag-when the job is done, they earned it.Now there is a similar challenge-global warming. The steady deterioration of the very climate of this very planet is becoming a war of the first order, and by any measure, the U.S. is losing. Indeed, if America is fighting at all, it's fighting on the wrong side. The U.S. produces nearly a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases each year and has stubbornly made it clear that it doesn't intend to do a whole lot about it. Although 174 nations approved the admittedly flawed Kyoto accords to reduce carbon levels, the U.S. walked away from them. There are vague promises of manufacturing fuel from herbs or powering cars with hydrogen. But for a country that tightly citespatriotism as one of its core values, the U.S. is taking a pass on what might be the most patriotic struggle of all. It's hard to imagine a bigger fight than one for the survival of a country's coasts and farms, the health of its people and stability of its economy.The rub is, if the vast majority of people increasingly agree that climate change is a global emergency, there's far less agreement on how to fix it. Industry offers its plans, which too often would fix little. Environmentalists offer theirs, which too often amount to native wish lists that could weaken America's growth. But let's assume that those interested parties and others will always bent the table and will always demand that their voices be heard and that their needs be addressed. What would an aggressive, ambitious, effective plan look like-one that would leave the U.S. both environmentally safe and economically sound?Halting climate change will be far harder. One of the more conservative plans for addressing the problem calls for a reduction of 25 billion tons of carbon emissions over the next 52 years. And yet by devising a consistent strategy that mixes short-time profit with long-range objective and blends pragmatism with ambition, the U.S. can, without major damage to the economy, help halt the worst effects of climate change and ensure the survival of its way of life for future generations. Money will do some of the work, but what's needed most is will.I'm not saying the challenge isn't almost overwhelming,says Fred Krupp.But this is America, and America has risen to these challenges before.What is the author's attitude towards America's policies on global warming？A Critical.B Indifferent.C Supportive.D Compromising.

资料：Earlier this month, presidents Barack Obama of the US and Xi Jinping of China made an important symbolic gesture when they committed their countries, the two largest greenhouse gas emitters, to the Paris climate agreement. It was the clearest signal yet to investors worldwide that they need to think about the implications of global warming for their portfolios. On Friday afternoon there was an example of what that might mean Mr Obama’s administration issued an order temporarily blocking construction on a section of the Dakota Access oil pipeline. The move was a response to local concerns raised by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe about potential damage to historic sites and the threats of oil spills. But it is the global issue of climate change that had raised the profile of Dakota Access, making it into a cause celebre for US environmental campaigners. Bill McKibben of 350.org, which played a key role in the successful effort to stop the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada, has suggested that Mr Obama could block Dakota Access permanently, on the grounds that it would exacerbate the threat of climate change. Last month, the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality issued new guidance for federal agencies, making clear that their decisions should take into account “the potential effects of a proposed action on climate change”, and quantify their consequences for greenhouse gas emissions. Dakota Access is intended to carry crude oil 1,172 miles from North Dakota, a centre of the US shale revolution, to Illinois, en route to refineries around America. The case that it would add to global greenhouse gas emission will be harder to make than for Keystone XL, which would have brought crude from the high-emitting oil sands of western Canada, but the campaigners are certain to try. If Dakota Access is stopped, it will have a significant impact not just on energy Transfer Partners, the company leading the project, but on all North Dakota oil producers and their customers, who will be forced to use more expensive rail transport. Climate change is now an unavoidable business issue. In an excellent paper last week, BlackRock, the world’s largest fund manager, set out some of the ways that investors can reduce their exposure to the risks and benefit from the opportunities that it creates. The paper is a landmark in the rising awareness of the issue among mainstream investors. It is one thing when a philanthropic fund with assets of a few hundred million takes a stand on climate issues, quite another when the warnings come from a company with about $4.9tn under management. As BlackRock points out, investors’ personal views on climate science are irrelevant. Enough governments and businesses are convinced by the scientific consensus that the threat is real, and are driving regulatory and technological changes that interested in you. 六If the world is to reduce the risk of catastrophic global warming to acceptable levels, there will have to be a huge reallocation of capital away from fossil fuels and toward low-emission energy sources. That shift has begun, but it needs to go much further. The transition is not straightforward: for as long as oil is the lifeblood of the world’s transport, pipelines will be needed. But when investors and boards make decisions about projects like Dakota Access, they will have to consider their impact on greenhouse gas emissions. The financial consequences of climate change can no longer be ignored.Which one of the following is not the measure taken by US government to deal with climate change? （）. A.Stop the Dakota Access permanently B.Join the Paris climate agreement. C.Require federal agencies to take climate change into consideration when making decisions. D.Suspend the construction of Dakota Access.

单选题请阅读 Passage 2，完成第 26~30小题。Passage 2Americans don't like to lose wars. Of course, a lot depends on how you define just what a war is. There are shooting wars-the kind that test patriotism and courage-and those are the kind at which the U.S. excels. But other struggles test those qualities too. What else was the Great Depression or the space race or the construction of the railroads? If American indulge in a bit of flag-when the job is done, they earned it.Now there is a similar challenge-global warming. The steady deterioration of the very climate of this very planet is becoming a war of the first order, and by any measure, the U.S. is losing. Indeed, if America is fighting at all, it's fighting on the wrong side. The U.S. produces nearly a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases each year and has stubbomly made it clear that it doesn't intend to do a whole lot about it. Although 174 nations approved the admittedly flawed Kyoto accords to reduce carbon levels, the U.S. walked away from them. There are vague promises of manufacturing fuel from herbs or powering cars with hydrogen. But for a country that tightly cites patriotism as one of its core values, the U.S. is taking a pass on what might be the most patriotic struggle of all. It's hard to imagine a bigger fight than one for the survival ofa country's coasts and farms, the health ofits people and stability ofits economy.The rub is, if the vast majority of people increasingly agree that climate change is a global emergency, there's far less agreement on how to fix it. Industry offers its plans, which too often would fix little. Environmentalists offer theirs, which too often amount to native wish lists that could weaken America's growth. But let's assume that those mterested parties and others will always bent the table and will always demand that their voices be heard and that their needs be addressed. What would an aggressive, ambitious, effective plan look like-one that would leave the U.S. both environmentally safe and economically sound?Halting climate change will be far harder. One of the more conservative plans for addressing the problem calls for a reduction of 25 billion tons of carbon emissions over the next 52 years. And yet by devising a consistent strategy that mixes short-time profit with long-range objective and blends pragmatism with ambition, the U.S. can, without major damage to the economy, help halt the worst effects of climate change and ensure the survival of its way of life for future generations. Money will do some of the work, but what's needed most is will. I'm not saying the challenge isn't almost overwhelmmg, says Fred Krupp. But this is America, and America has risen to these challenges before.From the last sentence of Paragraph 2, we may learn that the survival of a country's coasts and farms, the health of its people and the stability of its economy is ____.A of utmost importanceB a fight no one can winC beyond people 's imaginationD a less significant issue

Questions 184-188 refer to the following article. President Barack Obama has issued his call to put global warming at the top of the international agenda, pledging to push for coordinated action by the world's biggest countries to tackle problem of climate change. In the speech, the US president on Tuesday laid out a three-pan plan to deal with climate change using the power of his office. He outlined a strategy to cut the US's carbon pollution by reducing emissions from coal-fired power plants; to prepare the US for the impact of climate change, such as the super storm that ravaged the New Jersey coastline last year, and to lead the world by example in combating changing climate. "While no single step can reverse the effects of climate change, the president believes we have a moral obligation to our kids to leave them a planet that's not polluted and White House official said. The coal industry said the proposals could prove devastating-----shares in US coal mining companies have been falling sharply-but Mr. Obama ' s speech was being watched closely around the world. In Europe, where the Eurozone crisis has pushed the climate change agenda firmly into the political background, environmental campaigners said they hoped Mr.Obama's speech would puncture arguments tackling global warming as bad for the economy.”If you have got the US and China moving, then the argument that the EU is going it alone clearly doesn't stand up to scrutiny anymore," said Tom Brookes of the European Climate Foundation. The president said he would seek to expand new and existing international initiatives,including bilateral initiatives with China, India and other big emissions countries.What was the main point of Obama ' s speech? A. to call for actions to tackle the problems of climate change B. to co-ordinate for the implementation of international agenda C. to lay out a plan for environmental problems D. to find reasons for recent global warming

单选题Which of the following is the best title for the passage?A Rising Global TemperaturesB Rainforests Are in DangerC Coral Reefs Face ExtinctionD Global Climate Change

The world's oceans have warmed 50 percent faster over the last 40 years than previously thought due to climate change,Australian and US climate researchers reported Wednesday．Higher ocean temperatures expand the volume of water,contributing to a rise in sea levels that is covering small island nations and threatening to destroy the low-lying,densely-populated low regions around the globe. The study,published in the British journal Nature,adds to a growing scientific chorus of warnings about the pace and consequences rising oceans．It also serves as a corrective to a massive report issued last year by the Nobel-winning UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC),according to the authors. Rising sea levels are driven by two things:the thermal expansion of sea water,and additional water from melting sources of ice．Both processes are caused by global warming．The ice sheet that sits atop Greenland,for example,contains enough water to raise world ocean levels by seven meters,which would bury sea-level cities from Dhaka to Shanghai. Trying to figure out how much each of these factors contributes to rising sea levels is critically important to understanding climate change,and forecasting future temperature rises,scientists say．But up to now,there has been a puzzling gap between the projections of computer-based climate models,and the observations of scientists gathering data from the oceans. The new study,led by Catia Domingues of the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research,is the first to reunite the models with observed data．Using new techniques to assess ocean temperatures to a depth of 700 meters from 1961 to 2003,it shows that thermal warming contributed to a 0.53 millimeter-per-year rise in sea levels rather than the 0.32 mm rise reported by the IPCC.Ultimately,the new study should help scientists to__.A.lower water levels B.change their opinions C.better predict climate change D.bury sea-level cities like Dhaka and Shanghai

单选题Passage 2Americans don't like to lose wars. Of course,a lot depends on how you define just what a war is. There are shooting wars-the kind that test patriotism and courage-and those are the kind at which the U.S. excels. But other struggles test those qualities too. What else was the Great Depression or the space race or the construction of the railroads? If American indulge in a bit of flag-when the job is done, they earned it.Now there is a similar challenge-global warming. The steady deterioration of the very climate of this very planet is becoming a war of the first order, and by any measure, the U.S. is losing. Indeed, if America is fighting at all, it's fighting on the wrong side. The U.S. produces nearly a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases each year and has stubbornly made it clear that it doesn't intend to do a whole lot about it. Although 174 nations approved the admittedly flawed Kyoto accords to reduce carbon levels, the U.S. walked away from them. There are vague promises of manufacturing fuel from herbs or powering cars with hydrogen. But for a country that tightly citespatriotism as one of its core values, the U.S. is taking a pass on what might be the most patriotic struggle of all. It's hard to imagine a bigger fight than one for the survival of a country's coasts and farms, the health of its people and stability of its economy.The rub is, if the vast majority of people increasingly agree that climate change is a global emergency, there's far less agreement on how to fix it. Industry offers its plans, which too often would fix little. Environmentalists offer theirs, which too often amount to native wish lists that could weaken America's growth. But let's assume that those interested parties and others will always bent the table and will always demand that their voices be heard and that their needs be addressed. What would an aggressive, ambitious, effective plan look like-one that would leave the U.S. both environmentally safe and economically sound?Halting climate change will be far harder. One of the more conservative plans for addressing the problem calls for a reduction of 25 billion tons of carbon emissions over the next 52 years. And yet by devising a consistent strategy that mixes short-time profit with long-range objective and blends pragmatism with ambition, the U.S. can, without major damage to the economy, help halt the worst effects of climate change and ensure the survival of its way of life for future generations. Money will do some of the work, but what's needed most is will.I'm not saying the challenge isn't almost overwhelming,says Fred Krupp.But this is America, and America has risen to these challenges before.The paragraphs immediately following this passage would most probably deal with______.A the new book written by Fred KruppB how America can fight against global warmingC the harmful effects of global warmingD how America can tide over economic crisis

单选题Passage 2Americans don't like to lose wars. Of course,a lot depends on how you define just what a war is. There are shooting wars-the kind that test patriotism and courage-and those are the kind at which the U.S. excels. But other struggles test those qualities too. What else was the Great Depression or the space race or the construction of the railroads? If American indulge in a bit of flag-when the job is done, they earned it.Now there is a similar challenge-global warming. The steady deterioration of the very climate of this very planet is becoming a war of the first order, and by any measure, the U.S. is losing. Indeed, if America is fighting at all, it's fighting on the wrong side. The U.S. produces nearly a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases each year and has stubbornly made it clear that it doesn't intend to do a whole lot about it. Although 174 nations approved the admittedly flawed Kyoto accords to reduce carbon levels, the U.S. walked away from them. There are vague promises of manufacturing fuel from herbs or powering cars with hydrogen. But for a country that tightly citespatriotism as one of its core values, the U.S. is taking a pass on what might be the most patriotic struggle of all. It's hard to imagine a bigger fight than one for the survival of a country's coasts and farms, the health of its people and stability of its economy.The rub is, if the vast majority of people increasingly agree that climate change is a global emergency, there's far less agreement on how to fix it. Industry offers its plans, which too often would fix little. Environmentalists offer theirs, which too often amount to native wish lists that could weaken America's growth. But let's assume that those interested parties and others will always bent the table and will always demand that their voices be heard and that their needs be addressed. What would an aggressive, ambitious, effective plan look like-one that would leave the U.S. both environmentally safe and economically sound?Halting climate change will be far harder. One of the more conservative plans for addressing the problem calls for a reduction of 25 billion tons of carbon emissions over the next 52 years. And yet by devising a consistent strategy that mixes short-time profit with long-range objective and blends pragmatism with ambition, the U.S. can, without major damage to the economy, help halt the worst effects of climate change and ensure the survival of its way of life for future generations. Money will do some of the work, but what's needed most is will.I'm not saying the challenge isn't almost overwhelming,says Fred Krupp.But this is America, and America has risen to these challenges before.What does the passage mainly discuss？A Human wars.B Economic crisis.C America's environmental policies.D Global environment in general.

单选题Passage 2Americans don't like to lose wars. Of course,a lot depends on how you define just what a war is. There are shooting wars-the kind that test patriotism and courage-and those are the kind at which the U.S. excels. But other struggles test those qualities too. What else was the Great Depression or the space race or the construction of the railroads? If American indulge in a bit of flag-when the job is done, they earned it.Now there is a similar challenge-global warming. The steady deterioration of the very climate of this very planet is becoming a war of the first order, and by any measure, the U.S. is losing. Indeed, if America is fighting at all, it's fighting on the wrong side. The U.S. produces nearly a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases each year and has stubbornly made it clear that it doesn't intend to do a whole lot about it. Although 174 nations approved the admittedly flawed Kyoto accords to reduce carbon levels, the U.S. walked away from them. There are vague promises of manufacturing fuel from herbs or powering cars with hydrogen. But for a country that tightly citespatriotism as one of its core values, the U.S. is taking a pass on what might be the most patriotic struggle of all. It's hard to imagine a bigger fight than one for the survival of a country's coasts and farms, the health of its people and stability of its economy.The rub is, if the vast majority of people increasingly agree that climate change is a global emergency, there's far less agreement on how to fix it. Industry offers its plans, which too often would fix little. Environmentalists offer theirs, which too often amount to native wish lists that could weaken America's growth. But let's assume that those interested parties and others will always bent the table and will always demand that their voices be heard and that their needs be addressed. What would an aggressive, ambitious, effective plan look like-one that would leave the U.S. both environmentally safe and economically sound?Halting climate change will be far harder. One of the more conservative plans for addressing the problem calls for a reduction of 25 billion tons of carbon emissions over the next 52 years. And yet by devising a consistent strategy that mixes short-time profit with long-range objective and blends pragmatism with ambition, the U.S. can, without major damage to the economy, help halt the worst effects of climate change and ensure the survival of its way of life for future generations. Money will do some of the work, but what's needed most is will.I'm not saying the challenge isn't almost overwhelming,says Fred Krupp.But this is America, and America has risen to these challenges before.Judging from the context，the wordrub（Para.3）probably means________.A frictionB contradictionC conflictD problem

大学英语四级

填空题The world’s most extensive research effort on climate change is now regulated by the U.S. Global Change Research Program.____

题目

相似问题和答案

更多相关问题

相关内容